All else aside, why Maybrick's unlikely....

[Livia]

A faker working in the wake of the quickly killed off Hitler Diaries would have been able to find examples of Maybrick's handwriting to copy, or at the very least to use for comparison purposes, if the object had been to produce something remotely believable.

So with that in mind, what would have been more probable:

Going ahead, with absolutely zero regard for how the real James Maybrick formed his letters, fully aware that this would be a major stumbling block, no matter how much effort was put into other aspects of the project?

Or not going ahead, realising it would be a lost cause before it was even begun, not to make at least a rudimentary stab at reproducing the known Maybrick hand?

Now turn this on its head, and imagine - if you can - someone writing in the era of pen and ink, who made no attempt to fleece the public or seriously frame James for the ripper murders, but created the diary to make a point, in the wake of the Maybrick Trial, or even just for jolly, to see if the two cases could be merged and 'solved' for the price of one, in a topical and satirical way.

What would have been more probable this time?

Going to the trouble of looking for examples of Maybrick's handwriting to copy, when none might have been readily available to the author, and when it would not have been necessary to the success of the project, if only intended as a funny little literary spoof at the Maybrick family's expense?

Or writing it in a hand that nobody coming across it could have mistaken for Maybrick's, because it was never meant to be mistaken for a genuine ripper confession by the real 'Sir James'?

Let's say I decided to write a spoof diary for another 'Sir James' - Sir Jim'll Fix It Savile. Too soon, I hear you cry. Well exactly so. It would not see the light of day, of course, even in our more liberal times. Nobody would admit to finding it remotely comical. It would be considered the height of poor taste and not worthy of publication, even though I would naturally write it at Savile's expense, making him repeat all his ghastly catchphrases ad nauseam, uttering them at the most inappropriate moments, and I could make much of his penchant for flashy gold jewellery, tacky track suits and tackier behaviour, and believe me I would make the spelling and grammar just the ticket for a common little man who became larger than life and twice as creepy.

But I sure as hell wouldn't bother to reproduce his handwriting. It would be all in the content - as it happens.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

If it was written as a satire, where's the humor?
Wouldn't most Victorians have found the contents
appalling, much as we do, particularly the cannabilism?

Weedon Grossmith spent his honeymoon in Aigburth in 1895, but
how did he get into 7 Riversdale? The adult Fletcher-Rogers
children were living there at the time. There doesn't seem
to be any link between them, the Rogers were educated
(fairly) locally, while the Grossmiths were educated in London.
Two of the Fletcher Rogers sons were clergy, another a soldier
and two others had emigrated to the States, while the Grossmiths
were music hall artists. There doesn't seem to be any
convergence in their lives.

How would the Grossmiths know of mundane events
such as whether or not Edwin was in England or in the
States, that Gladys was a sickly child, that Maybrick
spent his last Christmas at brother Tom's, all of which
are noted in the diary, but not in MacDougall (1891)
the most comprehensive book about the Maybricks
prior to 1895.

If the diary was not written by Maybrick, but was
purposefully written, it seems to me that the most
likely reason was blackmail.

Anyway, here's Weedon's marriage register containing
the signatures of both brothers:



Liv

[Livia]

Here you go Tempus, the 1911 census written and
signed by the head of household, in this case
Michael Maybrick.



I have Edwin's and Thomas' too. William was living
in a boarding house by 1911, his landlord completed
the form.

Liv

[miakaal4]

tests and motivations

I have not checked this out properly, but I would be willing to bet that all the tests carried out on the diary would have been accepted much quicker, were it not for the subject and the connotations. It has passed many of these tests with the testers saying on record that it is "old". i.e. more than 50 years.
If we use a reverse investigation method and rule out those who could not have written the diary, it would quickly lead to a few. And all of those few would have to have intimate knowledge of Maybrick, the brothers, the lovers and the wife, as well as the small matter of the childrens health.
And of course they would be up on addiction to poisons, and the effects of going 'cold turkey'.
They must have a very good knowledge of the JtR crimes, (remember this is prior to all those modern books), be able to write in a manner that modern doctors and investigators with personal experience, would recognise as paranoid schizophrenia, and have the skills to create a work that is so subtle, that an uninformed reader may think the book just silly scribblings and discard it to the bin.
They would not be writing this book for financial gain, but for some sort of personal revenge against James Maybrick, or the wider family.
To those who still believe that the book is modern, they would have all the above plus technical skills to produce a book that could fool so many learned people. Easy really...a ten year old could do it!

[Tempus omnia revelat]

I don't know if this is relevant or just plain junk, but I've been re-reading Feldman's book recently, and a point he makes is that he sees a connection between The Ripper and Freemasonry. That connection, fairly obviously, is the fact that Michael Maybrick was a high-ranking Mason. There has always been a legendary 'connection' between The Ripper and Freemasonry, and this, Feldman claims, can be explained via Michael. I have never really felt that James Maybrick either wrote the Diary or was Jack The Ripper, but with reference to Caz's excellent post above it seems possible - possible - that the Diary was written, for whatever purpose, by someone who not only knew James Maybrick and his family, but also someone who had bits of information that may not have been general pub,lic knowledge at the time. It's only a suggestion, and nothing else, but if the Diary was written by someone with intimate 'Maybrick knowledge', then could that someone have been passed 'inside' information by Michael Maybrick? Who, if Freemasonry is all it's cracked up to be, would very likely have been in a position to obtain it.

Finally, has anyone been able to compare the handwriting of the other Maybrick brothers, and also Alfred Brierley, with the writing in the Diary? Just a thought....

Graham

Hi Graham! I am currently investigating (amongst other things) the Michael Maybrick Masonic connection. I am hoping this may lead to some handwriting examples. I have posted a copy of the Isle of Wight Mayoral register on here which shows Michael's signature. I'm not sure whether you have seen this. There is also another example of his handwritng in Hampshire, as I understand it.

As for the other brother's, I am not aware of any handwriting that has been discovered, but I am sure there is some out there somewhere. During the original search of the house, several love letters from Edwin Maybrick were found, but I am pretty sure that these would have been destroyed by Michael.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Graham]

I don't know if this is relevant or just plain junk, but I've been re-reading Feldman's book recently, and a point he makes is that he sees a connection between The Ripper and Freemasonry. That connection, fairly obviously, is the fact that Michael Maybrick was a high-ranking Mason. There has always been a legendary 'connection' between The Ripper and Freemasonry, and this, Feldman claims, can be explained via Michael. I have never really felt that James Maybrick either wrote the Diary or was Jack The Ripper, but with reference to Caz's excellent post above it seems possible - possible - that the Diary was written, for whatever purpose, by someone who not only knew James Maybrick and his family, but also someone who had bits of information that may not have been general pub,lic knowledge at the time. It's only a suggestion, and nothing else, but if the Diary was written by someone with intimate 'Maybrick knowledge', then could that someone have been passed 'inside' information by Michael Maybrick? Who, if Freemasonry is all it's cracked up to be, would very likely have been in a position to obtain it.

Finally, has anyone been able to compare the handwriting of the other Maybrick brothers, and also Alfred Brierley, with the writing in the Diary? Just a thought....

Graham

[Tempus omnia revelat]

The handwriting of the diary does look like James' handwriting if only you look close enough. The are letter formations that clearly look the same. The problem is that the writing of the diary was written under different circumstances to that of the neatly written company memos. This is what throws some people. This is also the reason why it is easier to find ripper letters that closely match the handwriting of the diary than it is to find ones that match his handwriting on the memos (apart from the obvious one).


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The "Maybrick" Diary isn't written in an 1888 diary

What is an "1888 diary"?

It's written in a Victorian era scrapbook. Whoopie. Are you suggesting that Jack would slaughter unfortunates but insist on a "real" diary?

And the Diarist doesn't even bother to date entries....

[caz]

A faker working in the wake of the quickly killed off Hitler Diaries would have been able to find examples of Maybrick's handwriting to copy, or at the very least to use for comparison purposes, if the object had been to produce something remotely believable.

So with that in mind, what would have been more probable:

Going ahead, with absolutely zero regard for how the real James Maybrick formed his letters, fully aware that this would be a major stumbling block, no matter how much effort was put into other aspects of the project?

Or not going ahead, realising it would be a lost cause before it was even begun, not to make at least a rudimentary stab at reproducing the known Maybrick hand?

Now turn this on its head, and imagine - if you can - someone writing in the era of pen and ink, who made no attempt to fleece the public or seriously frame James for the ripper murders, but created the diary to make a point, in the wake of the Maybrick Trial, or even just for jolly, to see if the two cases could be merged and 'solved' for the price of one, in a topical and satirical way.

What would have been more probable this time?

Going to the trouble of looking for examples of Maybrick's handwriting to copy, when none might have been readily available to the author, and when it would not have been necessary to the success of the project, if only intended as a funny little literary spoof at the Maybrick family's expense?

Or writing it in a hand that nobody coming across it could have mistaken for Maybrick's, because it was never meant to be mistaken for a genuine ripper confession by the real 'Sir James'?

Let's say I decided to write a spoof diary for another 'Sir James' - Sir Jim'll Fix It Savile. Too soon, I hear you cry. Well exactly so. It would not see the light of day, of course, even in our more liberal times. Nobody would admit to finding it remotely comical. It would be considered the height of poor taste and not worthy of publication, even though I would naturally write it at Savile's expense, making him repeat all his ghastly catchphrases ad nauseam, uttering them at the most inappropriate moments, and I could make much of his penchant for flashy gold jewellery, tacky track suits and tackier behaviour, and believe me I would make the spelling and grammar just the ticket for a common little man who became larger than life and twice as creepy.

But I sure as hell wouldn't bother to reproduce his handwriting. It would be all in the content - as it happens.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

Or

1) Maybrick was just recording his thoughts and thus his actions, diary be damned, versus some person wanted the vicarious attention this document would (and has!) bring

2) Maybrick's drug addiction and mental state affected his handwriting, versus the forger had no reference he or she could trust

3) The diary is a recording of a descent into madness and murder versus the whole thing is a putrid mess of forgery and deceit

4) The question of the diary is worth fighting over versus the dead horse has been beaten to a pulp already

[Bridewell]

Probability

The "Maybrick" Diary isn't written in an 1888 diary and it isn't written in James Maybrick's usual handwriting. Which are the more probable explanations:

(1) James Maybrick chose not to write his 1888 diary in an 1888 diary
or
(2) No 1888 diaries were available to the writer when the diary was written?

(3) The person unable to reproduce James Maybrick's handwriting was James Maybrick
or
(4) The person unable to reproduce James Maybrick's handwriting was someone else?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Sorry guys, but when faced with only two choices the odds are even.

Not when one of the two possible outcomes is far more probable than the other as in the example already given by another poster: "I will die today or I will not".

Regards, Bridewell.

[RavenDarkendale]

I did have poor math in the last one at that, now that I go back and reread it...

[DGB]

This might possibly be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Let me try an even simpler example to show this is not the case:

I stand before you, hands outstretched, palms facing upwards. True or false: I have the Empire State Building in the palm of my hand?

That's a true or false question where the odds aren't 50:50. Coin flips and cards have regular values of probability because they have no forces acting upon them. When you introduce human involvement they skew the odds - the most obvious example with cards is magic tricks.

When you're dealing with the human mind there are even more variables at play.

I shouldn't make personal comments but your grasp of how probability works is so poor that - for your own reputation - I'd avoid commenting further on the matter

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Raven, Sir Robert.

"That's not remotely close to how probabilities work, Raven. Binary outcomes are not necessarily coin flips."

Precisely. An "excluded middle" (ie, tertium non datur) does not entail 50-50 probability. Consider the following excluded middle proposition:

"I will die today or I will not."

If we set the odds at 50-50, all the actuarial scientists would collapse due to infarction. (heh-heh) Not to mention the insurance companies.

Cheers.
LC

Sorry guys, but when faced with only two choices the odds are even. Dosen't require a coin flip. Ever read The Lady or the Tiger? Two choices, 50-50. There is either a tiger there or a woman. Two aces a red diamond and a Black spade, chances of picking up either is 50-50. If you don't like my math, fine.

Look there are 52 cards in a fair deck. Let us say we want to draw a Red Queen and a Black ace. There are two red queens, so we have 2/52 or 1/26. Now given that we do hit the red queen, we must now go for the black ace. Two black aces, but now the odds are 1/51. total odds for this exact outcome is 1/26 * 1/52 or one in 1352.

Simply True or false gives two choices, which is 1/2 odds or 50 50.

God Bless

Darkendale

[lynn cates]

50-50

Hello Raven, Sir Robert.

"That's not remotely close to how probabilities work, Raven. Binary outcomes are not necessarily coin flips."

Precisely. An "excluded middle" (ie, tertium non datur) does not entail 50-50 probability. Consider the following excluded middle proposition:

"I will die today or I will not."

If we set the odds at 50-50, all the actuarial scientists would collapse due to infarction. (heh-heh) Not to mention the insurance companies.

Cheers.
LC